beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 4,000,000.
The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.
Reasons
1. The sentence of the lower court (an amount of four million won) on the summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable.
2. Ex officio determination
A. Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, and Article 18(2) and (3) and Article 19(1) of the Rules on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings provide that service to the defendant shall be made by means of service of public disclosure where the location of the defendant is not verified even though the defendant took necessary measures to identify the location of the defendant, if the location of the defendant is not verified. If the defendant’s personal phone number, mobile phone number, etc. on the records appear, prior to the decision to serve public notice, an attempt should be made to confirm the place of service
It is in violation of the Act on Special Cases and the Enforcement Rule thereof to conclude that the location of the defendant is not confirmed without taking such measures, and promptly serve a writ of summons by means of public disclosure and make a judgment without making a statement of the defendant (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Do5800, Feb. 27, 2004, etc.). According to the records, the fact that the defendant's address "H of Suwon-si" and mobile phone number I" are stated in the written request for formal trial and the written request for recovery of claim for formal trial submitted by the defendant can be recognized. In such a case, the court below tried to serve a writ of summons with the defendant's dwelling newly discovered before the decision to serve public notice or check the place where the defendant is to receive service by communicating with his/her cell phone.
Despite the fact that such measures should be taken, the court below made a judgment without the defendant's statement without taking such measures. In violation of Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases and Articles 18 (2) and (3) and 19 (1) of the Rules on Special Cases, the court below erred by affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
B. According to the records, the Defendant on September 19, 2012.